It might be different if those people who choose to free-ride carried an identification that said not to treat them for any medical condition unless they pay upfront. This issue actually has a great deal to do with economics, and the Commerce Clause usage is entirely appropriate. As far as DOMA and Prop 8 -- I would have preferred both to be struck down on Equal Protection grounds. (Not that I believed there was any realistic possibility of this given the current make up of the Court.) The fight is not over. Right now, states are still free to discriminate if they wish. And unfortunately there are a good many that wish to do so.
That's a conclusory statement based on nothing in the Commerce Clause itself or in the case law pertaining to it. Wishful thinking doesn't change the scope of Constitutional powers.
On the contrary, the Commerce Clause was inserted to deal with the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution needs to be a 'living and breathing' document because things are not the same as they were in 1789.
I'm trying to stay out of this off topic exchange, I don't care that you are having it, but on this I must comment. Unless the country is willing to revoke the law that says EDs cannot turn patients away, and unless the country is willing to let people who cannot pay die on those ED steps, then the people you speak of are gambling with my money. Who do you think pays for all the bad debt uninsured patients leave when they get medical care out of necessity? The rest of us, that's who pays, be it through direct payments or insurance premiums which cover the bad debt in the medical industry. So I don't care what you call it, but the argument someone required to purchase health care insurance is "doing nothing other than living" is seriously misleading.
None of that changes the fact, however, that the Congress has limited powers under the Commerce Clause and can't extract a fine under the guise of the Commerce Clause from people who aren't engaging in commerce. Just like in Lopez, the federal law restricting guns within X feet of a school was struck down, not because anyone thought it was a good idea to have guns near schools, but because there was no reasonable basis under the Commerce Clause for the federal government to pass that law. Same here. Even though you have valid points, and those are all areas that need to be addressed by the law, it doesn't change the fact that the Congress can only act within its Constitutional authority, and its Commerce Clause authority doesn't extend that far. So the mandate had to be re-cast as a tax, because the taxing power of Congress would sustain it. Congress knew that from the start, I suspect, and only didn't cast it as a tax from the outset because it was politically unpalatable.
I don't care about that, Steerpike, your statement, "extracting money from people who are doing nothing other than living", was still false. And as long as people falsely frame the argument, reasonable debate cannot occur. Getting back to the thread , Melissa Harris-Perry is on saying the ruling could make things worse, "gutting" (her word) the power of the federal government to ever pass a gay civil rights law. I'm not sure how she views the specifics like Kennedy citing equal protection. I await my own reading of the actual ruling.
I don't think she's right. Civil Rights laws are federal statute, passed under the Commerce Clause. They only apply where interstate commerce is reasonably connected to begin with. It's a clear area of federal power, and nothing in this ruling would prevent passing of a similar act for gay rights, or even adding sexual orientation to existing civil rights legislation.
It's easy to forget real people in discussions like this. I'm very very happy for you, and other of my friends whom this will directly affect.
[MENTION=3885]Wreybies[/MENTION] - understandable under the circumstances. And I'm very pleased that they decided on the basis of standing, not for any legal implication but rather because to me, that is the heart of the matter. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense that the very ideologues who claim to be so dedicated to individual freedoms are so willing to intervene in this most personal of areas. And, as I think of it, there is an additional benefit to the lack-of-standing rationale - it sure makes it difficult for opponents to craft a law that can get past it. In the end, I'm happy for everyone affected, but I'm also happy that a major hot-button topic, designed to distract voters from real problems, has been dispatched. A couple more, and they'll be reduced to attacking evolution as their one smokescreen.
Not even Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion in Lopez goes so far as your position. He acknowledged the significant case history interpreting the Commerce Clause as applicable to activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, which healthcare clearly does. While I still disagree with Lopez, the gun possession is unquestioningly less related to interstate commerce than is healthcare, which has a huge effect. The gutting of the Commerce Clause last year was pretty significant, and quite activist.
It's a gobsmacking moment, to borrow a terms from your present home. I'm pacing back and forth in my office unable to sit for more than two or three minutes. Not to be a geek about it, but it's a little like I imagine discovering you have magic or super powers would feel like in that moment of discovery. There are three more states that will pass marriage equality bills this fall, not including California, which may well be the fourth. My heart bursts with joy at the knowledge that young LGBT people, just coming into their own as people, will have a brighter path to follow, a path that gives them a better opportunity to form a self esteem that every person deserves, one of vast self-love, self-admiration, self-worth, and self-value, because how we value others has its roots in how we value ourselves. Thank you for your happiness in this, Jan. To hear these words from my elders, you and Ginger, (please don't hear that the wrong way) means the world to me. It means that this isn't a new idea. It's been there in the hearts of people like you always.
After yesterday's decision, I wouldn't be so secure in the safety of existing civil rights legislation.
I am actually amazed and impressed at the speed of social change on this issue. As recently as 2004, discrimination against gays was used to re-elect George Bush. In less than ten years, the polls showed a complete reversal in public opinion -- going from a majority opposed to equal rights to a majority for it, with young people being even more strongly in favor of them, meaning that the path going forward will only be even more bent toward equality.
And for those of us who fight for this on what we hope is a rational platform, this is the way we want it. We don't want it forced down people's throats. We want it to come from The People; it's the only way it will last. And it seems it is coming from The People. Your generation (going off of your profile picture) has brought to fruition some extremely important paradigmatic changes in how we view fairness and discrimination. We would never have had an African American president if not for your generation.
It was inevitable. As the next generation of people rise to positions of power, more and more immoral things will be considered acceptable in society. All in the name of 'equality'. It's a sad day for America and I am extremely disappointed. I don't see the tide turning back, though.
As a conservative, though, don't you have a problem with the Feds stepping into what has always been a matter of State law and determining the rights in that arena for certain citizens of the State?
I don't know so this is just speculation, but maybe the homophobes being courted to vote and speak out acted as a catalyst for people who hadn't been paying a lot of attention or motivated to act.
According to the Constitution, the federal government has no business doing most of the things they do. They overstepped their bounds a long, long time ago.
Yeah, but the way to fix that isn't to approve of it when they do it in favor of your side and disapprove when they do it in favor of the other. The Court needs to be consistent, and neutral, in terms of making sure government is operating within it's defined powers. I don't think DOMA is something any conservative should support, merely because of the federal overreach it represents.
I really think that there was just a critical mass that was reached. As more and more gay people felt comfortable coming out, that led to more gay people feeling able to do so, and that led to more people realizing how many gay people they actually knew, and made the issue more personal and more tangible. Also, as more gay people became parents, more people with children interacted with families headed by gay couples, and enabled them to see more gay people in situations that were just like their own. People weren't just seeing the videos of the folks marching in the gay pride parades (which always would emphasize the more flamboyant people), but all the gay folks who were just living normal lives. In addition, I don't think you can underestimate pop culture and entertainment. Shows like Will and Grace and Modern Family that prominently featured gay characters lead to greater familiarity and acceptance, as well.
Well, if the basis for the ruling was based on the Constitution limiting federal powers, then yes, I agree with that. If the basis was 'equality' or 'civil rights' then I disagree. Plus all the exposure of the pro-gay movement that will follow, will just ingrain more young people to believe that homosexuality is acceptable. I understand this and while saddened, I am reminded of the Book of Joshua that says: "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
